2013 QCCQ 20770, 2013 QCCQ 20770

Protection de la jeunesse — 132254 2013 QCCQ 20770 COURT OF QUEBEC YOUTH DIVISION CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF […] N°: 525-41-025740-127 N°: 525-41-025741-125 DATE: June 7, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ANN-MARIE JONES, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ Director of Youth Protection A Applicant - and - X Born on [...], 2012 - and - Y Born on [...], 2012 - and - B - and - C Respondents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGEMENT

Section 95 Youth Protection Act ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING : The Youth Protection Act forbids the publishing or broadcasting of information allowing for a child or the child's parents to be identified.

Any person who contravenes this provision commits an offence and is liable to a fine. [sections 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A .] [ 1 ] The Court was presented with two motions for extension of orders rendered July 20, 2012, entrusting the children to foster care along with a social follow-up and other specific measures until February 7, 2013. [ 2 ] The principal facts alleged in support of the motions are the following: • The children are doing very well in the foster home where remarkable progress is achieved; • On November 13, 2012, the children were moved from an emergency foster home to a culturally appropriate foster home; • The parents have had three supervised contacts with the children, the last one dating July 2012; • Additional supervised visits between the children and the parents were attempted by the youth protection worker, but to no avail; • The children have had two contacts with two of their older siblings; • The parents have not communicated with the foster parents, sustained communication with the children, provided any form of assistance to the children or the foster family nor attended the children’s medical appointments; • The parents have had a transient lifestyle, moving back and forth between Town A and their northern community; • The parents have not been collaborative with the youth protection process, more particularly: . the parents failed to sustain communications with the youth protection worker; . the parents do not have a reliable phone number to be reached at;

. the parents do not return the youth protection worker’s phone calls; • The parents have failed to address their issues, more particularly: . the parents were encouraged to seek services to address their issues pertaining to conjugal violence but did not do so: . the mother interrupted life skills adult education classes after two sessions; . the parents sought services from a healing lodge but were referred to services appropriate with their issues, which they failed to seek; . the parents tested negative on a random drug and alcohol test in August 2012. [ 3 ] The Director of Youth Protection recommends that the children be maintained in their present foster home for a period of one year and that the foster home remain confidential.

This period is needed in order to elaborate a permanent plan for the children. [ 4 ] The parents admit the majority of the facts alleged in the motions. The parents agree for the children to be maintained in foster care for one year, but with reintegration to their care as soon as the situation allows. The parents are also asking for the children to be transferred to a foster family in Town B or Town C. [ 5 ] The mother testifies that she went back to Town C in January 2013 and was living at the home of D, the father’s sister. She started working for a mining company near Town D in March 2013 as a kitchen help.

She works for 21 days and then gets 7 days off. When she is living at the home of D, she sees her two older daughters, Z and A. The mother says that she does not use drugs or alcohol anymore. She followed a 28 days drug rehabilitation program with [Centre A] in March 2012 but did not complete the follow-up program. She says she had one relapse with drugs around June 2012 and has not taken any alcohol since October 2012.

She states she has seen the twins only twice since August 2012, as it is too far and too expensive to come and visit them in Town A. [ 6 ] The father states that he went back to Town C in December 2012 and has been working in for a mining company since January 2013. He also lives at the home of his sister, D, when he is not working. The father states that they will rent a house from a young man who is leaving to study in Town E.

This house will is situated between the mine and the home of D. [ 7 ] Counsel for the children considers that the measures recommended by the Director of Youth Protection are in the children's best interest. The parents not being in a position to meet the children's needs. [ 8 ] The Court also heard the testimony of [Social Worker 1] and read the reports the Director filed as proof of the children’s situation. The evidence reveals that the mother is pregnant and will give birth to another child in October 2013.

The parents have not been collaborating with the Director of Youth Protection or addressing their difficulties. [ 9 ] Although the parents have made some progress since the last Court order, they have not stabilised their lifestyle and there are contradictions in their testimonies as to the father’s drinking. Furthermore, they do not have a stable home and are still struggling financially. [ 10 ] Under the circumstances, it is in the children’s best interest to be maintained in their present foster home for a period of one year. The parents are not in a position to meet their children’s needs at this time.

The parents are asking for the children to be transferred to a native family in Town B or Town C.

However, the liaison worker for [Centre B], [Social Worker 2], was informed that no native foster families were available in those areas. [ 11 ] The evidence and the admissions made have convinced the Court that the security and development of the children are still compromised. [ 12 ] THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 13 ] GRANTS the motions; [ 14 ] DECLARES still compromised the security and development of the children, X and Y; [ 15 ] ORDERS that the children be entrusted to foster care for a period of one year; [ 16 ] ORDERS that the foster home remain confidential and that the children be maintained in their present foster family; [ 17 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the children and their parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, including supervision as deemed necessary; [ 18 ] ORDERS that a request be made in order for a youth worker be assigned to work with the parents; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the parents collaborate with DYP and inform the youth workers of the steps they have taken to address their respective situations and of any change of address or telephone number; [ 20 ] ORDERS the parents to refrain from consuming alcohol or being under the influence of alcohol and drugs when in the presence of the children; [ 21 ] ORDERS that DYP be authorized to obtain and share information with the professionals working with the family; [ 22 ] WITHDRAWS from the parents certain attributes of parental authority and AUTHORIZES DYP to sign all consents for the

children related to health, travel and activities, if the parents cannot be reached within a reasonable delay; [ 23 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the children and their family for a period of one year; [ 24 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children, X and Y, to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall see that the measures are carried out; [ 25 ] ORDERS the execution of the present order by any peace officer. Signed June 7, 2013 Ann-Marie Jones, J.C.Q.

AMJ/dg Me Marie-Josée Paiement Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Me Pauline Laforce Counsel for the children Me Judith Shapiro Knight Counsel for the mother Me Marc Morin Counsel for the father Date of hearing: May 29, 2013